Talk:Mathematics

I added the quotation back in because Wikiquote doesn't have formal notability requirements for people being quoted. The very existence of a template for quoting Usenet articles suggests a Usenet article is an okay source. The guideline is interestingness of quotations, not notability of the author. Also, when you remove a quotation, you're supposed to post it here on the talk page for discussion. Catamorphism 22:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Now I have deleted this quote again. Here it is on the talk page. Apologies for not listing it here before. Coming as I do from wikipedia I am not used to the local customs.

You observe that wikiquote does not have formal notability requirements. However the fact that it does not does not automatically mean that any quote ought to be admissable. Otherwise I could quote my friends endlessly on wikiquote in a manner that no one but my in crowd could understand.

I shall put down a reasonable test I feel that quotes on this page ought to meet:

The quote ought to be understandable outside of its original context (or the context ought to be well enough known that most people (aquainted with the subject matter) will still understand it.

The quote ought to be one of the following:

Known by many people.

Uttered by a famous person.

NB: Both of the above need to be tempered by the context of the quote. I.e a quote need only be known by many people familiar with its subject matter.

The quote ought to be one of the following:

Interesting

Funny

Rude

Of significance on its own

Of significance given its source or some additional context

Now furthermore one might be able to argue that a quote which meets only some of these requirements is acceptable. However the quote in question is not understandable outside of its original context. I do not know of this quote (neither do any of the PhD maths students I asked) and its only google hit is on this wikiquote page. I am willing to entertain any evidence that more than a handfull of people have heard this quote however I can find no such evidence myself. The quote is not from any famous source even when we restrict attention to mathematicians or even philosophers of mathematics. If I am wrong about this (and I have made enquiries) then do provide evidence to prove the contrary. I don't consider the quote to be interesting, funny or rude but I do consider it to be curiously bizaar. Hence this quote meets none of the above criteria except perhaps being of significance.

Now having read the usenet post carefully I can see the point that the quote attempts to make. However its hardly the most eloquent way of making this point and its hardly a quote about mathematics! So this quote would meet the the significance criteria if it were on the page concerning cryptography or maybe RSA encryption.

Now of course you may not agree with my precise criteria. If so I would challenge you to provide a criterion under which this would be admissable without my friends quotes concerning mathematics also being liable for inclusion. You may also disagree with my application of my own criteria in which case you can point out my error.

Otherwise I would think its quite clear that the article has been improved by this quotes removal. Barnaby Dawson 11:15 GMT 02-03-06 (ddmmyy)

The fact that Wikiquote does not have a matching article for each Wikipedia policy article should not be taken to mean it doesn't have a formal policy on the subject. Our policy pages tend to be much fewer and more specific than Wikipedia's. Wikiquote is a much younger, vastly less active project, and so makes do with a minimal set of policy pages and an essential assumption of Wikipedia practices in the absence of specific policy to the contrary. On the matter of notability, we not only follow Wikipedia's guidelines, but we have some specific statements on the subject:

From Main Page: "Welcome to Wikiquote, a free online compendium of quotations from notable people and creative works…" [emphasis mine]

From Wikiquote:Wikiquote: "Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable either because it has achieved fame by itself, but more usually because it was said by someone notable, or appeared in a notable work."

From WQ:NOT: Wikiquote is not… a place for quotations by you and your friends. (However, you can put such quotations on your user page.)

The clause about a quote having "achieved fame by itself" should not be taken as a license to add anything that's on Usenet or any other WP-unreliable source. It's more for famous anonymous quotes and proverbs, and even that is currently controversial. Take a look at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion on any given day and you'll find quite a few articles nominated because they about unnotable subjects; the same notability requirement applies to individual quotes.

It would be reasonable to expect Wikiquote to improve its policy pages to avoid this confusion. (I note that Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines is currently virtually useless, as it's almost completely a copy of Wikipedia's old version, which doesn't provide much Wikiquote-specific information.) The problem is that there are less than half a dozen editors at any given time (of the 3,000+ registered editors and who-knows-how-many anonymous ones) who are working on this badly needed area of maintenance, and most of their time is spent doing other, even more critical maintenance (like vandal reversions, VfDs, Main Page updating, etc.). Until Wikiquote "grows up", we must make do with a few specific policies and a general assumption that if it doesn't fly on Wikipedia, it won't on Wikiquote. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 17:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I came here because I was trying to find the source of a particular quote. I cannot have the words correct (otherwise I would have found it by now) but it was approximately "Mathematics is the study of all possible universes". Does anyone know what the correct quote is and by whom it was uttered? Barnaby Dawson

I doubt the un-sourced attribution to George Polya of "Mathematics consists of proving the most obvious thing in the least obvious way." Anyone familiar with his pedagogical work would know that if he ever said such a thing at all it could only have been with ironic intent. He did indeed employ irony, but if he said this then taking it out of context is a gross misrepresentation of his views. ~ Ningauble 22:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Afterthought: At least this scurrilous graffito spurred me to start an article on George Polya. I can't believe there was not one already. ~ Ningauble 17:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. (referring to the axiomatic method, where certain properties of an (otherwise unknown) structure are assumed and consequences thereof are then logically derived)

Mathematics takes us into the region of absolute necessity, to which not only the actual word, but every possible word, must conform.

How dare we speak of the laws of chance? Is not chance the antithesis of all law?

To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in.

One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulas have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, that we get more out of them than was originally put into them.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

The WP article w:Mathematics gives this note for that quote: 'Einstein, p. 28. The quote is Einstein's answer to the question: "how can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?" ' and gives source 'Einstein, Albert (1923). Sidelights on Relativity (Geometry and Experience). P. Dutton., Co.' -R. S. Shaw 01:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)